The Observation Deck

Saturday April 29, 10:00 - 11:00
Lakewood Public Library Detroit Ave. Auditorium
Fletcher Miller, PhD
Board Member of Green Energy Ohio
and
NASA Scientist

will present the Presentation on:
Community Wind Power and Manufacturing Potential in Ohio.

This is the same person who did the presentation that we discussed in Newburgh Heights. He was so good, we asked if he would come to Lakewood and he agreed.

Coffee and muffins will be provided and we hope you can come.

Hi,
You can visit Cleveland Crib Wind Monitoring to both see a beautiful live video of downtown Cleveland from the Crib as well as review results from the monitoring equipment.
The wind power of Lake Erie is among the best available in Ohio.

Just wanted to remind everyone of the meeting.

Wind is the fastest-growing energy source, but accounts for less than 1 percent of the U.S. energy generation. By 2020, its market share is expected to be 6 percent, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The Toledo Blade has been reporting on Wind Power

Here is the latest article: Energy answer may be blowing in the wind

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060405/NEWS06/604050384/0/NEWS33

Hope to see many of you tomorrow morning!!!!

Last year I, along with the County Engineer attended a Fletcher Miller presentation. It was prior to the placement of the monitoring equipment on the water intake crib. A very informative and and thought provoking presentation, I hope to stop in today and hear some of the preliminary results. Thanks

For those interested developing critical citizen chops about wind power, economic development and property rights, there is a useful website produced by Cohocton Wind Watch.

This blog is worth following.

All the usual suspects emerge in the posts from this citizen organization– Wall street hype, the exercise of fast track political muscle, eminent domain, corporate subsidy.

Here’s a recent post:

“The latest rage out of the boiler room sharks that hawk new equity issues touts alternative energy. The hype that is coming out of Wall Street resembles the internet band wagon before the bust. Investors are getting calls from brokers about unit trusts, mutual funds and hot shares. Goldman Sachs rushes to finance the offers with their expertise – using other peoples’ money. And why not when the taxpayer is being used as the patsy to subsidize the greed and insatiable appetite of the vultures that swarm around looking for an easy meal.

Understand from the outset, that producing useful energy is not the prime objective of wind projects. Big business sees an opportunity to cash in big time! Politicians scurry around to deposit all those fresh campaign contributions and place their name on legislation written by industry lobbyists. Companies are hastily organized for this 21st century Oklahoma land rush that is only open to approved corporate partners. The apologists for this shady scheme to impose corporate dominance over agriculture land use public apprehension as the tool to serve their faceless bankers.

In late June 2005 a conference entitled "Renewable Energy Finance Forum - Wall Street" co-sponsored by the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) and Euromoney Energy Events, a subsidiary of Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC addresses wind projects. Wall Street is clearly kicking into a higher gear in response to the new policies, some coming from Washington, some from the states, some from Europe, and some from multinational corporations. Leadership is emerging from commercial bankers, institutional investors, pension funds, venture capitalists, insurance companies, and corporate leaders who are seeing public sentiment shift towards new actions, and public policy begin to support those aims.

The 3rd AWEA Wind Power Finance & Investment Workshop was held in New York, NY, on October 25 - 26, 2005. Stated in their program agenda: Workshop participants will hear experts speak on topics including basic wind project economics, what makes a project financeable, new forms of development finance and how private equity funds and Wall Street may change wind power finance in the next phase of its growth.â€Â￾

Is this the way America is supposed to operate? Property rights are pushed aside for the promise of quick profits and rapid tax deprecation. The argument that local municipalities and agribusiness will share in the income stream falls short when the onion is peeled and all the layers of this boondoggle are exposed to the light of day. Public scrutiny is urgently needed to reveal the true nature of a rip off dressed up in the charming platitudes.

Community outrage is building. The Star-Gazette.com, 3/8/2006 reports:

Plans to build hundreds of electricity-generating wind turbines have stirred a storm of controversy across several Southern Tier counties. Clipper Windpower Inc. has proposed building about 30 turbines in the town of Hornby in Steuben County and about 10 turbines in the town of Orange in Schuyler County. Steuben Wind Power wants to build about 40 turbines in the Steuben County towns of Hartsville and Hornellsville. EverPower Renewables has proposed 25 to 30 turbines in the Steuben County town of Howard.

UPC Wind wants to build an as-yet-unspecified number of turbines in the Steuben County town of Cohocton. And a partnership between Global Winds Harvest Inc. and UPC Wind, plus another project proposed by Ecogen, could result in more than 100 turbines in the towns of Prattsburgh in Steuben County and Italy in Yates County.

"It's going to wreak some havoc on the town, and these things don't really belong there," said opponent Robert Kern, 62, of Hornby. His Chambers Road property would be within 1,200 feet of the proposed turbines, he said. The Hornby Town Board reviewed proposed zoning changes Monday that would regulate the wind turbines, said Donald Borden, town supervisor. Source: Star-Gazette.com, 3/8/2006.

An alarm bell should sound for any landholder when the subject of eminent domain raises it ugly head. When farmland is rezoned industrial or special use permits are approved for industrial projects the very real risk of condemnation follows. Wind Developers can assign or sell leases and contracts that extend decades into the future like gaming chips in a Vegas casino. Not exactly a safe proposal. Waging the birthright of future generations is foolhardy.

The economics of wind farms are suspect when state subsidies are removed from the equation. How many times in the past has the public been told that a project is beneficial only to be burdened with the clean up cost of a Love Canal? Use your common sense. Public utilities may trade as stock equities, but there is little public protection from Public Service Commissions. Wind may sound like it is free for the taking, but when you put a pencil to the scurry that grabs all the government financing that can be passed on to the taxpayer, you uncover the real motivation of all the front companies for the utility conglomerates.

Robert L. Bradley Jr. in RENEWABLE ENERGY Not Cheap, Not "Green" provides the reference documentation to support the following: “ratepayers typically pay three times more for wind power than they would pay for electricity in today's spot market, and the premium could be higher. A conservative estimate of the total U.S. government (i.e., taxpayer) subsidy to wind power totals over $1,200 per installed kilowatt, even greater than the direct capital cost of wind under advanced technology of around $860 per kilowatt and certainly more than the installed capacity cost of gas-fired combined-cycle plants of approximately $580 per kilowatt. On a dependable capacity or capacity factor basis, the subsidy cost and capital cost premium to market is severalfold greater.â€Â￾ Bradley’s conclusion: “Only a sizable taxpayer or ratepayer bailout will prevent the large majority of the state's heavily indebted wind-power capacity from going the way of synthetic oil and gas production.â€Â￾

Wall Street would not think of utilizing their own communities for such ventures. Their playgrounds are immune from the economic havoc that would destroy property values in their neighborhoods. Ponder this assessment: “Cooperstown, Cazenovia, and Skaneateles won't see wind prospectors wandering their ridge tops. Cherry Valley is typical of the demographics used by commercial wind for site guidelines. We have been told repeatedly by supporters of the wind plant that "Cherry Valley is a dying community and there is no other choice." With absolutely no evidence, they believe they can become a tourist destination in the midst of large-scale industrial development. They want us to believe that we can have our cake and eat it too.â€Â￾

Here we go again! NYC and downstate interests ready to rape the countryside so they can pay for the fuel to jet away to their privileged enclaves. This is not a valid model for free enterprise, but it is a formula for unconscionable enrichment for a corrupt political/corporate partnership. This is not a sensible way to produce efficient energy. These wind projects are simply a way to appropriate rural land for exploration by plutocrat elites at the expense of ordinary citizens. Wake up and put a stop to this special interest government subsidy. Let the prospects of any project rise or fall on their own merits.â€Â￾

James Hall – April 30, 2006

Source:

http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/2006/ ... -wind.html

Kenneth Warren

Thanks for Saturday's Wind Power Presentation in Lakewood. Superb, well-attended (40+ people), much interest "generated"!

Several things:
1) The presenter, Dr. Fletcher Miller, has an idea that we should have several windmills visible off the shoreline (with the rest of an installation elsewhere). These visible windpower mills would be the only in the U.S. and could become a new city (Cleveland) icon, replacing the Burning River and telling the world we're leaving the ranks of the Rust Belt and joining forward-looking communities such as Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, etc.

I'd like to see this idea pushed by Strickland for Gov, Frank Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, or even Lakewood!

2) One Lakewood councilmember attending commented the next day to me that our city pays $500,000 per year to power traffic and street lights alone; I bet this number goes up when factoring in City Hall and other facilities. This Councilmember said at least 3 of 7 Lakewood Council members were interested in wind power and we toyed with the idea of teaming up with Rocky River and other West Shore suburbs to approach Cleveland Municipal Power and get windmills.

3) Sunday I joined a nature walk with NE Ohio Sierra Club, and they remarked that their national membership overwhelmingly voted to prioritize renewable energy. They are studying the aspects of the issue now and knew who you were. My hunch is they and other groups could be harnessed as part of such a coalition.

In sum: *Great* issue. Btw are you familiar with George Lakoff, Don't Think of an Elephant? He proposes a new "Apollo Project" to develop renewable energy. Advantages: this is economic development, plus environment, plus scientific research, plus cooperative thinking across borders (i.e. Kyoto vs. unilateral bombing). Lots here.

To respond to the points raised by Ken's post:

Wind power is an intersection between environmental benefits (emissions-free renewable power) and job growth. It's a win-win, not an either or. That's precisely why it's an extra-good issue.

Ohio and Cuyahoga County are top areas for potential job growth from this industry (manufacturing components)--potentially thousands of jobs. This is a high-tech kind of manufacturing that won't be as easy to ship to Mexico or China, so this is the kind of job growth we need for Ohio.

Controversies of wind power include: damage to birds (they get killed by the rotors; could this be mitigated by putting on ultrasonic emitters to scare birds away from the installation?) and NIMBYism--not in my back yard.

Apparently there is a big dispute in Massachusetts (near Martha's Vineyard?) over installing windmills. I don't have the background, but the impression is the project was pushed without community support so many residents were upset.

A typical stray cat kills more birds a week than a typical windmill does in a year. The rumor is that the bird kill rumor comes from the energy lobby.

We need solutions for our energy crisis. Wind is working tremendously well all over the world. Europe is planning to be 20% powered by wind by 2020. We were in Costa Rica and it is doing amazing things with wind.

Coal is destoying our water and our air. The mercury in Lake Erie alone from sulfur poisioning makes it dangerous to eat the fish. It is causing several other harmful problems. Plus, it isn't renewable and we are dragging it in from other states. Sending our dollars to them.

Nuclear produces wastes that are very hazardous, and it is very expensive since Three Mile Island. I have worked as a consultant at Perry, Davis Besse and Rochester Nuclear Power Plants. When I compare the cost, danger and output of these plants to windmills there isn't a question which is safer and less costly in areas where there is a good class of wind.

Solar is wonderul, but not plentiful enough in Northern Ohio. I am encouraged by the roof tiles and paint that they are coming up with.

Geothermal is wonderful but expensive, initially and usually is site specific.

Obviously conservation makes sense, but doens't meet all of our needs.

The best solution for Northern Ohio for Large Scale work seems to be wind in my humble opinion. It is particularily good on the Lake. I was blown away the first time I heard Dr. Miller and picked up on additional items this time.

The bird issue is a non-issue. The Audubon Society of New York came out in favor of it. Coal with its pollution hurts birds. We did a dead bird count daily at the nuclear plants. I love birds. The new windmill design cause minimum problems for them. Much less than even tall buildings or large glass windows, or heaven forbid like Mark said, an outdoor cat.

Yes, I heard that the oil and gas industry throws up the bird issue when ever they think people are getting serious about wind.

Update: City Councilman Michael Dever is interested in spearheading a meeting between West Shore suburbs to see if some of the municipal electricity bills (hundreds of thousands of dollars annually) can go to renewable, esp. wind power.

Note that the Great Lakes Science Center put up a demostration windmill on the lake front.

Note that Tom Cruise makes a daring getaway through the rotors of a windmill in MI III! (The bad guys' copter gets chopped in half.)

Could the Ingenuity Festival (their theme: art combined with technology) host a competition to design several "signature" windmills for Cleveland's skyline to make this the area's new icon? (Replacing the notorious burning river...)

Lynn as you can imagine from some of my previous posts, I am doubtful that alternative energy sources can have much of an impact on our fossil fuel addiction. With regard to wind power, I'd be curious to know how much electricity (in watts or megawatts?) one average windmill can generate. Like that one our in front of the science center. Do you know? Then we can try to correlate that with the energy requirements of, say, Lakewood or Northeast Ohio, to see whether wind power is a realistic alternative.

The Plain Dealer reported that the windmill would generate 7% of the Science Center's needed power. I thought that number seemed awfully low.

I don't know how much power the Science Center needs, but that windmill is very large and it seems as though the output is very small in relation to the real estate (both horizontal and vertical) occupied.

It made me wonder how many single homes could be powered by one windmill.

The wind mill at the science center is there for demonstration purposes mainly. The position is poor and there are many problems with it. In fact at one time they were thinking about powering it so that it had nothing to do with the wind.

In Bowling Green they have 4 wind turbines that generate 1.8 MW each which powers 1500 homes. Dr. Fletcher hates us to use this number because he thinks it shows no conservation at all - which he believes we should use in addition to sustainable energy.

However wind is not as good in Bowling Green as it is in Lake Erie. We can use bigger turbines there. Some turbines are now at 3 - 4 megahertz, each which is roughly twice the power of the Bowling Green ones. Combine that with a much better wind source.

I did an article on this for the next Observer, so I don't want to print it all here.

Suffice it to say, we were just in Costa Rica and country which is an oil producing country powers itself almost exclusively on sustainable energy of which wind is a big source. The technology exists, we just have to make a decision to use it.

Ken I want to get back to you on your article. I see many problems there and with the differences here.

Thanks Lynn. I look forward to your article and to the next issue (as I do every issue).

Of course you know how I feel: the same as Dr. Fletcher. Conservation should be the first option, not an afterthought like it is today. But Americans simply will not volunteer to conserve. We want big houses on big lots with big kitchens and high ceilings. We want all our modern “conveniencesâ€Â￾. And of course we want our big cars. Really big cars. We want the other guy to conserve. Plus our national “leadersâ€Â￾, how are any of those clods ever gonna “galvanizeâ€Â￾ us to conserve?

We need stiff carbon taxes, for our own good, because we need to reduce our energy use to something closer to that of Costa Rica before renewables have a prayer of substantially reducing our fossil fuel addiction.